UAF; Opinions (round two)

[Holden Caulfield]

origionally posted by 'Icepick'


Think the BNP can be defeated by voting Labour or for some middle-class tourist standing on a left-wing ticket?

Want to waste your time on pointless marches waving a lollipop or standing behind police lines shouting trite slogans at the BNP, instead of going in and dealing with them directly?

Fancy being bossed around by clueless ‘stewards’ who collaborate with the cops?

Want to be recruited into the Socialist Workers Party?

If so, you should contact Unite Against Fascism.



If anybody wants to defend the SWP's popular front UAF I am all ears, and, equally if anybody wants to stick the verbal boot in (with some examples) I am equally gleeful,

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Ken Livingstone
Peter Hain MP
David Hanson MP
Adam Price MP
Barbara Follett MP
Diane Abbott MP
John Cryer MP
John Trickett MP
Keith Vaz MP
Peter Bottomley MP
Alice Mahon MP
Alan Meale MP
Ian Gibson MP
Sir Teddy Taylor MP
Harry Cohen MP
Betty Williams MP
Ken Purchase MP
Alistair Carmichael MP
Laura Moffatt MP
Peter Bradley MP
Vera Baird MP
Bill Etherington MP
Edward Garnier MP
Roger Berry MP
Angela Smith MP
Brian Iddon MP
Anthony Steen MP
Mike Hancock MP
Colin Pickthall MP
Clive Betts MP
Janet Anderson MP
Neil Gerrard MP
Jane Griffiths MP
Brian Donohue MP
Helen Clark MP
Terry Davis MP
Janet Dean MP
Adrian Bailey MP
David Cameron MP
Louise Ellman MP
Eric Illsley MP
Kelvin Hopkins MP
Ernie Ross MP
Rob Marris MP
Martin Caton MP
Jim Sheridan MP
Martin Jones MP
Paul Tyler MP
Colin Challen MP
David Wright MP
Rudi Vis MP
Tony Worthington MP
Derek Watts MP
Julie Morgan MP
Rev W Martin Smyth MP
Diana Organ MP
Doug Henderson MP
Barry Gardiner MP
Glenys Kinnock MEP
Gary Titley MEP
Linda McAvan MEP
Glyn Ford MEP
Chris Davies MEP
Chris Heaton-Harris MEP
Claude Moraes MEP
Phillip Whitehead MEP
Stephen Hughes MEP David Seymour
Political Editor,
Daily Mirror
Mark Seddon
Tribune Editor
http://www.uaf.org.uk/aboutUAF.asp?choice=4

Wankers.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I would also like to add the likelyhood of the ruling class "swaping sides" and turning on the left if very likely since they are much more likely to prefer an increased fash precance then a leftist one.

[Vanguard1917]

Unite Against Fascism is a semi-official, government-sponsored organisation which exists to provide greater legitimacy to the capitalist state by calling upon it to introduce more authoritarian measures to police public life under the guise of 'smashing' non-entitity political groupings like the BNP. It's not a organisation that i support.

[Killfacer]

Pile of wank.

[Holden Caulfield]

Pile of wank.

try to be more constructive, this kind of post will be deleted from now on

[Sam_b]

defend the SWP's popular front UAF I am all ears

Prove that UAF is an 'SWP Front'. I have no time for bullshit like this.

And i'd love to hear you elaborate on how an organisation helping to get 100,000 people to a festival against the BNP is a 'pile of wank'. Unless you think that attacking BPP meetings with screwdrivers is in any way progressive or class-based.

[Holden Caulfield]

did i not just tell the user who said that not to, or are you taking all the posts above as mine? becase I didnt say it,

and as for the popular front comment: this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1301739&postcount=2)

and this

We aim to unite the broadest possible spectrum of society to counter this threat.
from here (http://www.uaf.org.uk/aboutUAF.asp?choice=1)

[Vanguard1917]

Unless you think that attacking BPP meetings with screwdrivers is in any way progressive or class-based.

And appealing to the bourgeois state to ban and censor the BNP 'is in any way progressive or [working] class-based'?

[Sam_b]

And appealing to the bourgeois state to ban and censor the BNP 'is in any way progressive or [working] class-based'?

Aren't you the guy that says its OK for fascists to be in unions? If so...


did i not just tell the user who said that not to, or are you taking all the posts above as mine? becase I didnt say it,

I have no idea what this means.

So do you have any real basis for calling the UAF an 'SWP Front'?


We aim to unite the broadest possible spectrum of society to counter this threat.

I see no problems with this.

But then again I don't conform to centuries old and outdated views on United Fronts. And thankfully, neither does our membership. This is why UAF enjoys the full support of our party.

What are the CWI doing to combat fascism, Holden? Building a new worker's party?*




*This can also be changed from 'combat fascism' to 'stop the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan'.

[Holden Caulfield]

I have no idea what this means.why mention the BBP thing that is what somebody else said dont use it against me


So do you have any real basis for calling the UAF an 'SWP Front'?
the fact it is full of bourgeois politicians

the CWI wanted to use SWP dominated platforms to call for socialist unity and a new workers party but you guys didnt want to scare off the middle class supporters that 'swell' your ranks

[Holden Caulfield]

Aren't you the guy that says its OK for fascists to be in unions? If so...
that didnt even answer his point, actually meet the arguments instead of avoiding them

[Vanguard1917]

Aren't you the guy that says its OK for fascists to be in unions? If so...

I'm the guy who upholds the correct Marxist view (one shared by Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolsheviks) that unions should not be expelling workers based purely on their political views.

Hopefully you'll answer the question this time. Do you think there is anything progressive about the fact that UAF appeals to the bourgeois state to censor the far-right?

[Sam_b]

why mention the BBP thing that is what somebody else said dont use it against me

It wasn't directed at you, but at most of the anti-fascist forum who seem to think that this action is to be supported.


the fact it is full of bourgeois politicians

So you don't have any evidence, figures, nothing? Your 'answer' does nothing to prove your hypothesis.


the CWI wanted to use SWP dominated platforms to call for socialist unity and a new workers party but you guys didnt want to scare off the middle class supporters that 'swell' your ranks

1. You still keep calling these SWP front swith no evidence.

2. You mean you couldn't use them to fuel your propaganda for a new worker's party.

So...what are the CWI doing to stop the spread of fascism and to stop the war? No doubt with some turgid analysis of the economy,

[Sam_b]

Do you think there is anything progressive about the fact that UAF appeals to the bourgeois state to censor the far-right?

Oh dear. Do you think there's nothing progressive when socialist parties appeal to the bourgeois state to raise the minimum wage, for example?

[Holden Caulfield]

So you don't have any evidence, figures, nothing? Your 'answer' does nothing to prove your hypothesis.

http://www.uaf.org.uk/aboutUAF.asp?choice=4 this, what CJ posted, from the UAF website


but at most of the anti-fascist forum who seem to think that this action is to be supported.no, they support physically stoping the extreme far right from propagating their shit on our streets but so does the UAF, the BPP Leeds protest was probably the best tactic they have used in my view


So...what are the CWI doing to stop the spread of fascism and to stop the war?
not putting ourselves in the same hat with the bourgeois politicians who cause such things for one, and secondly actively engaging with the working classes, we also have worked with in so called 'leftist fronts' in order to try and make them genuinely working class, socialist and not single issue movements

the SWP even gave the BNP the platform at the GLA thingys btw

but we are debating the UAF here you want thar debate you start it somewhere else,

[Vanguard1917]

Oh dear. Do you think there's nothing progressive when socialist parties appeal to the bourgeois state to raise the minimum wage, for example?

Oh dear. Obviously, that's not the same thing at all.



Theory, as well as historic experience, testify that any restriction to democracy in bourgeois society, is eventually directed against the proletariat, just as taxes eventually fall on the shoulders of the proletariat. Bourgeois democracy is usable by the proletariat only insofar as it opens the way for the development of the class struggle. Consequently, any workers “leader” who arms the bourgeois state with special means to control public opinion in general, and the press in particular, is a traitor. In the last analysis, the accentuation of class struggle will force bourgeois of all shades, to conclude a pact: to accept special legislation, and every kind of restrictive measures, and measures of “democratic” censorship against the working class. Those who have not yet realised this, should leave the ranks of the working class.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/08/press.htm

"Traitor", "leave the ranks of the working class" - those are some strong words used by Trotsky to describe organisations* who demand state censorship.

The Marxist position is that there is nothing progressive about such a policy - to say the least.


*Trotsky is referring to workers' organisations, something which the respectable government-supported UAF is, of course, not.

[Sam_b]

http://www.uaf.org.uk/aboutUAF.asp?choice=4 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.uaf.org.uk/aboutUAF.asp?choice=4) this, what CJ posted, from the UAF website

Again, Holden, oh dear oh dear. I don't see anything to suggest that this is an SWP front: that is, an organisation that is run by and is actually the SWP.



the SWP even gave the BNP the platform at the GLA thingys btw


1. Prove it.

2. The SWP didn't stand in the GLA elections. SWP comrades stood as Left List candidates.


but we are debating the UAF here you want thar debate you start it somewhere else,

Stop hiding from the facts. I see nothing to suggest that the CWI has organised anything to organise against the BNP. Anyone can say that they are 'engaging with the working class'. I'm sorry , I thought that was what all socialist parties were supposed to do? The real thing here is that the CWI have been sloppy on their condemnations of Iraq and Afghanistan, taking ridiculous and condesending lines 'against terrorism and war' and made excuses for not organising against fascism by pointing to 'bourgeois politicians'.

If you are against calling on action by 'bourgeois politicians', why did your tendency a)organise for years within the Labour party, b) campaign against job cuts?



Try again.


EDIT - Vanguard, do you organise in any movements against fascism or are you content with sniping against any achievements and working class organisation against it from the sidelines?

[Vanguard1917]

EDIT - Vanguard, do you organise in any movements against fascism or are you content with sniping against any achievements and working class organisation against it from the sidelines?


Why aren't you addressing the issue - that it is considered absolutely unacceptable from the perspective of Marxism to call on the bourgeois state to restrict democratic rights?

[Sam_b]

Because there is no issue to address.

Its hollow rhetoric picking and choosing your Trotsky quotes, when history shows otherwise. Remember the Bolsheviks working alongside the bourgeois politicians of the Provisional Government against Kornilov?

EDIT 2 - Why don't you answer the question I pose to you as well?

[Vanguard1917]

Because there is no issue to address.

Well, there is. The issue is the incorrect and reactionary policy of UAF.



Its hollow rhetoric picking and choosing your Trotsky quotes, when history shows otherwise. Remember the Bolsheviks working alongside the bourgeois politicians of the Provisional Government against Kornilov? d the Bolsheviks.


Lol. Are you claiming that the Bolsheviks ever supported or demanded from the bourgeois state the restriction of democratic rights?

Of course, we know that they did not. Such demands were always considered wholly unacceptable by Marxists, from Marx to Lenin and the Bolsheviks.

[Holden Caulfield]

Again, Holden, oh dear oh dear. I don't see anything to suggest that this is an SWP front: that is, an organisation that is run by and is actually the SWP.
well then you participate and have a large amount of influence in popular front, popular fronts that contains Tories



SWP comrades stood as Left List candidates.
yeah i dont post on here either im not wrong, i post as Holden and so am free of all criticism, i will find a source but they stood down from a platform that the BNP were also to be on, effectively giving the BNP the platform on a plate,



'against terrorism and war'
yeah we are all Zionists secretly, we dont even chat we are hezbolla either, shame on us



a)organise for years within the Labour party
the Labour party was workable then, we went where the majority of the working class were and we got results, when it became clear the Labour party was not swinging to the Left as we had hoped the situation changed,


b) campaign against job cuts?
for obvious reasons, we dont participate in popular fronts with the Tory party to get them though,

[Sam_b]

Are you claiming that Bolsheviks ever supported or demanded from the bourgeois state the restriction of democratic rights?

Why should we support the rights of people who wish to destroy all democracy?

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=14906


So, fancy answering the question I posed?

[Vanguard1917]

Why should we support the rights of people who wish to destroy all democracy?

Because, as Marxism teaches us, and as reality verifies, any restrictions to democracy by the bourgeois state will ultimately be used against the working clas. Such restrictions grant the bourgeois state greater powers to control political life. They allow the bourgeois state -- i.e. our main enemy -- to act as a mediator of social and political conflict, and thus increase its authority, influence and legitimacy in society.

[Holden Caulfield]

i know you are, but try to keep the UAF the definate focal point of the discussion,
cheers, im going to bed, :)

[Sam_b]

well then you participate and have a large amount of influence in popular front, popular fronts that contains Tories

Ok, so we've established that UAF isn't an SWP front. If you're going to attack it on that, what do you think about the Bolsheviks and the Provisional Government?


yeah i dont post on here either im not wrong, i post as Holden and so am free of all criticism, i will find a source but they stood down from a platform that the BNP were also to be on, effectively giving the BNP the platform on a plate

Ok, do so.


yeah we are all Zionists secretly, we dont even chat we are hezbolla either, shame on us

I just think your party has a profound misunderstanding of what is happening in the Middle East and uses language of the reactionary right. But that's for another thread.


the Labour party was workable then, we went where the majority of the working class were and we got results, when it became clear the Labour party was not swinging to the Left as we had hoped the situation changed,

I would suggest it fitted perfectly, seeing as one of the Militant leaders within the anti-poll tax federation went on TV and threatened to 'grass up' members who had participated in the rioting. Indeed, the organisation condemned the entire riot.

[Sam_b]

I'll ask you for a third time, Vanguard1917:

Vanguard, do you organise in any movements against fascism or are you content with sniping against any achievements and working class organisation against it from the sidelines?

EDIT: And Marxism has never 'taught us' that a no-platform policy for fascism is detrimental.

[Vanguard1917]

Vanguard, do you organise in any movements against fascism or are you content with sniping against any achievements and working class organisation against it from the sidelines?

Why are you avoiding the issue? Why are you so unable to defend the core policy position of the organisation that you support?



EDIT: And Marxism has never 'taught us' that a no-platform policy for fascism is detrimental


What Marxism teaches us is that asking the bourgeois state to restrict democractic rights -- i.e. the policy of UAF -- is absolutely reactionary and thus unacceptable.

[Sam_b]

I've defneded it fine, yet you seem to not want to answer the simple question posed.

And you seem caught up in this idea that somehow fascism has democratic 'rights'.

[Vanguard1917]

And you seem caught up in this idea that somehow fascism has democratic 'rights'.

What does that mean? Why aren't you addressing the issue?

[Sam_b]

Somehow I think any answer I give won't be of any use to you. And the same for me perhaps: though you've never answered my question either and keep pointing to select pieces of Trotskyist theory that are vague enough to try and backup your argument.

This fails though. Show me anywhere in Marxist theory that relates to freedom of speech for fascists and then we'll debate. This debate also went on in the KPD/SPD in Germany with the risning of Naziism, and it is well held that their tactic failed.

[Vanguard1917]

This fails though. Show me anywhere in Marxist theory that relates to freedom of speech for fascists and then we'll debate.

I already have. Marxists oppose all restrictions to democractic rights in capitalist society, even for reactionary scum, because we know that such restrictions will only damage our cause. As Trotsky put it in 1938, 'it is only the greatest freedom of expression that can create favorable conditions for the advance of the revolutionary movement in the working class.'



This debate also went on in the KPD/SPD in Germany with the risning of Naziism, and it is well held that their tactic failed


What are you saying, that the Nazis came to power because the German bourgeoisie did not restrict democracy enough?

[BobKKKindle$]

It seems that many of the people who have posted in this thread fail to understand the concept of a united front. A united front is a tactic whereby revolutionaries form a temporary alliance with other organizations such as trade unions and established mainstream parties which are friendly to the interests of the working-class even when they are not revolutionary, in order to respond to an immediate issue (such as fascism) which could not be dealt with solely by the efforts of revolutionaries acting without the support of these other groups, and also to win over the members of these groups to a revolutionary position. Now, it is clear that there are some bourgeois politicians who have given their support to UAF and are now involved in the activities of this organization, and on the basis of this you are accussing UAF of being a popular front. However, the crucial issue at hand is leadership. It is absurd to suggest that the decision of a bourgeois politician to become a signatory or member of UAF instantly transforms UAF into a popular front - this would only be the case if these bourgeois forces were able to take control of the leadership of the organization and manage the way it is being run, and this has clearly not occurred, because the secretaryship is divided between three individuals who are all working-class militants.

As for the issue of democracy, when has UAF ever called for the BNP to be banned?

[Vanguard1917]

As for the issue of democracy, when has UAF ever called for the BNP to be banned?

Demanding greater state restrictions against the BNP is the core policy of UAF. UAF basically wants the state to remove as many democratic rights as possible from the BNP. As Weyman Bennett (Joint Secretary of UAF) infamously demanded "Let's turn BNP into HMP [Her Majesty's Prison]" - i.e. imprison it.

Here's an example of slightly more sober and commonplace, though not any less incorrect, demands:



"We invite all those who uphold the principals of equality and oppose the politics of race hate and fascism to call on:
• The BBC and independent television companies not to give air-time to the racist and fascist views of the
British National Party (BNP) in the course of the General Election and local elections this year.
• The government to propose an amendment to the Representation of the People Act so that explicitly racist parties cannot have their election literature circulated free of charge.
• The Government to strengthen Part 3 of the Public Order Act of 1986 so that prosecutions for incitement to racial hatred will be easier to bring and more likely to succeed."

http://www.uaf.org.uk/resources/0503MOpulltheplugs.pdf (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.uaf.org.uk/resources/0503MOpulltheplugs.pdf)

[Devrim]

It seems that many of the people who have posted in this thread fail to understand the concept of a united front. A united front is a tactic whereby revolutionaries form a temporary alliance with other organizations such as trade unions and established mainstream parties which are friendly to the interests of the working-class...

Bob Kindles has no idea what a 'united front' is. It is an alliance of workers and working class organisations.


The united front tactic is simply an initiative whereby the Communists propose to join with all workers belonging to other parties and groups and all unaligned workers in a common struggle to defend the immediate, basic interests of the working class against the bourgeoisie.

At least Sam is clear on this:


But then again I don't conform to centuries old and outdated views on United Fronts. And thankfully, neither does our membership. This is why UAF enjoys the full support of our party.

I am not sure about the 'centuries old' though, Sam.

It does not include the leaders of bourgeois parties like David Cameron. The UAF is of course a popular front, whatever SWP members like to claim.


Prove that UAF is an 'SWP Front'. I have no time for bullshit like this.

And of course it is also an SWP front. I don't think any proof is needed. It is very clear. I think most UK based posters can make up their own minds. Others will have to choose whom they believe. The SWP denying it, or others asserting it, won't change anything.

The core of Sam's argument though seems to be to criticse others, and not to defend the UAF:


What are the CWI doing to combat fascism, Holden? Building a new worker's party?*...
So...what are the CWI doing to stop the spread of fascism and to stop the war?...
Stop hiding from the facts. I see nothing to suggest that the CWI has organised anything to organise against the BNP. ...
EDIT - Vanguard, do you organise in any movements against fascism or are you content with sniping against any achievements and working class organisation against it from the sidelines?...
Vanguard, do you organise in any movements against fascism or are you content with sniping against any achievements and working class organisation against it from the sidelines?


Whether the UAF is right or wrong is independent of the positions of other users on here. Even if they had no political activity whatsoever, it wouldn't discount their arguments as such (though it would obvioulsy undermine their credibility).

It did bring out one interesting response though:


the Labour party was workable then, we went where the majority of the working class were and we got results, when it became clear the Labour party was not swinging to the Left as we had hoped the situation changed,

So what you are saying is that the situation changed because your hopes were unfullfilled, so much for the Marxist method. Basically, the CWI analysis was so wrong that they had to change it. That they managed to do this whilst still claiming they were previously right involved a subtle display of theoretical gymnastics.

Sam responded:


I would suggest it fitted perfectly, seeing as one of the Militant leaders within the anti-poll tax federation went on TV and threatened to 'grass up' members who had participated in the rioting. Indeed, the organisation condemned the entire riot.

Shhh Sam, they don't like to talk about these things. It embaresses them. They don't like to tall about supporting the Falklands War either.

Devrim

[Hit The North]

And appealing to the bourgeois state to ban and censor the BNP 'is in any way progressive or [working] class-based'?

Well, your lot want to share platforms with the nazis. So fuck right off.

[Holden Caulfield]

Well, your lot want to share platforms with the nazis. So fuck right off.

if they already have the platform stepping down from it is the wrong tactic,

i personally do not support every thing the CWI has, does or probably will do, and I am sure they dont agree with everything thatt I stand for

but material conditions changed, as the Labour Party started its ugly transformation it was unrealistic to remain in it as a faction, the fact is as a faction we got results for the working class

[Vanguard1917]

Well, your lot want to share platforms with the nazis. So fuck right off.

Although i've never argued in favour of sharing a platform with 'Nazis', that would be a far better policy, from the POV of Marxism, than appealing to the bourgeois state to ban them.

It is interesting how not one of its supporters in this thread has been able to justify or defend the core policy position of UAF - its calls for state restrictions on democratic rights.

[Hit The North]

It is interesting how not one of its supporters in this thread has been able to justify or defend the core policy position of UAF - its calls for state restrictions on democratic rights.

It's difficult to defend against an accusation which is mainly founded in your imagination.

Any comrade here can visit the website and make up their mind what the "core policy position of the UAF" is.

What they'll find is an attempt to self-consciously unite the greatest breadth of opposition to the BNP and other fascist parties. They'll see a nation-wide attempt to rally and organise support for a campaign of ceaseless harassment of the BNP and a wide-ranging programme of raising awareness about anti-racism and exposing the BNP for the nazis they are.

Not interested? Then don't join. Want something more "hardcore"? There are a number of squadist organisations you can join.

What comrades won't find, however, is that the UAF have a "core policy position" of calling for state legislation banning the BNP.

I'm not a member of UAF, nor would I suggest it is the model of a combative workers united front. However, I object to Vanguard1917's attempt to undermine the very existence of no-platform policy by misleading comrades as to its intention by offering a distortion of the UAF "core policy".

Vanguard1917 is a devotee of Spiked and prides himself on holding contrary positions traditionally held by the left. That's fine, but he should realise that in practice this will often put him on the opposite side of the struggle.

Too bad for him. :rolleyes:

[Vanguard1917]

It's difficult to defend against an accusation which is mainly founded in your imagination.

Any comrade here can visit the website and make up their mind what the "core policy position of the UAF" is.

What? The core policy position of UAF is to put pressure on the state, along with other bourgeois institutions, to restrict the democratic rights of the far-right. That is what the organisation stands for. I have arealdy demonstrated this in this thread (see my second from last post). As Sam b puts it, the attitude of UAF is 'Why should we support the rights of people who wish to destroy all democracy?'



Vanguard1917 is a devotee of Spiked and prides himself on holding contrary positions traditionally held by the left.


But it's not a 'contrary position', is it? The left of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotksy and the Bolsheviks always bitterly opposed those who called for censorship in capitalist society.

Trotsky refered to such people within the labour movement as 'traitors', and demanded that they 'leave the ranks of the working class'.

From the Marxist perspective, there is no doubt as to who is upholding the reactionary position here.

[Sam_b]

As Sam b puts it, the attitude of UAF is 'Why should we support the rights of people who wish to destroy all democracy?'


I never said that was the attitude of UAF. On the contrary, I linked an article in the Socialist Worker. I was suggesting that no-platform be the policy of all socialists, not speecifically the UAF.

[Hit The North]

To not oppose fascists is a good Marxist position, is it? Only on Planet Spiked.


The core policy position of UAF is to put pressure on the state, along with other bourgeois institutions,Yes, to put pressure on by organising opposition, not pleading for legislation which is how you most often characterise it. The SWP does not support calling for laws to restrict the far right. If some softer elements of the UAF (selected MPs for instance) have at times called for this (maybe you can provide an instance) it is not with the agreement of the SWP.

Your attempt to daub no-platform with the colours of reformism, in order to undermine it and smooth the path for "dialogue" with the far right does you no credit.


As Sam b puts it, the attitude of UAF is 'Why should we support the rights of people who wish to destroy all democracy?'Whether that is Sam's real belief or not, it is a good argument to make with people who hold some illusion that politics is about reasoned debate. For a more militant audience we could argue, "Why should we support the rights of people who wish to destroy the workers movement?' If you are interested in defending their democratic rights, it just exposes you for the liberal you are.


The left of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotksy and the Bolsheviks always bitterly opposed those who called for censorship in capitalist society. Then they have this in common with the SWP. :)

[Vanguard1917]

I never said that was the attitude of UAF. On the contrary, I linked an article in the Socialist Worker. I was suggesting that no-platform be the policy of all socialists, not speecifically the UAF.

Well, whatever it was you meant to say, it is the attitude of the UAF.


'We support freedom of speech, thought and expression. We oppose those who are merely utilising this in order to remove the freedoms of others.'
http://www.uaf.org.uk/resources/0712CAstudentposter.pdf

[Vanguard1917]

Yes, to put pressure on by organising opposition, not pleading for legislation which is how you most often characterise it. The SWP does not support calling for laws to restrict the far right. If some softer elements of the UAF (selected MPs for instance) have at times called for this (maybe you can provide an instance) is is not with the agreement of the SWP.

No, it is the official position of UAF. Did you miss my post in this thread:

Demanding greater state restrictions against the BNP is the core policy of UAF. UAF basically wants the state to remove as many democratic rights as possible from the BNP. As Weyman Bennett - Joint Secretary of UAF and SWP member - infamously demanded "Let's turn BNP into HMP [Her Majesty's Prison]" - i.e. imprison it.

Here's an example of slightly more sober and commonplace, though not any less incorrect, demands:



"We invite all those who uphold the principals of equality and oppose the politics of race hate and fascism to call on:
• The BBC and independent television companies not to give air-time to the racist and fascist views of the
British National Party (BNP) in the course of the General Election and local elections this year.
• The government to propose an amendment to the Representation of the People Act so that explicitly racist parties cannot have their election literature circulated free of charge.
• The Government to strengthen Part 3 of the Public Order Act of 1986 so that prosecutions for incitement to racial hatred will be easier to bring and more likely to succeed."
http://www.uaf.org.uk/resources/0503MOpulltheplugs.pdf (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.uaf.org.uk/resources/0503MOpulltheplugs.pdf)



Then they have this in common with the SWP. :)

That's obviously not true, though, is it? The SWP is very much in support of capitalist restrictions on free speech.

It's support of the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill, for example, was very enthusiastic (Freedom to spread hate? (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=8243)). And, as we have seen, your leaders use slogans calling on the state to imprison members of the BNP.

As such, it is very much a lie to claim that you have something in common with the position of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolsheviks.

[Melbourne Lefty]

any restrictions to democracy by the bourgeois state will ultimately be used against the working class


Yup.

There it is.

The only way to stop the fash is to mobilise working class communities... which is WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING ANYWAY.

As for UAF being an SWP front, I wouldnt be willing to call it a 'front' but when you read reports of UAF demos there certainly doesnt seem to be anyone else there.

If that counts as a front then its a front.

More to the point the demos keep shrinking, the UAF does not seem to be growing at all and while it can get some numbers together in London it seems very weak elsewhere.

The fact that they only got 100 anti-fascist protesters out to a BNP rally in the centre of Liverpool should speak volumes.

But the real question is: Is the UAF stopping the BNP?

I would have to say no.

There seems to be no corelation between UAF leaflet drops and drops in the BNP vote.

The march against the RWB has probably pissed off more locals than fash, despite the help of the local paper that has its own beef with the BNP.

The recent Blackpool demo was small and looked nasty, then again any march in Blackpool along the seafront in the rain looks nasty.

The UAF needs to make genuine roots in the community if it wants to grow, and I dont think thats happening.

Just my two cents.

[Holden Caulfield]

The march against the RWB has probably pissed off more locals than fash, despite the help of the local paper that has its own beef with the BNP.

did you herd from the local personally or hear from people that did...?

do you think those locals want a fascist piss up in thier village, even if the only reason is because of their house prices? do you think those who complained to the council about RWB were not rather 'pissed off'/shit scared when a land rover with (suspected) BNP heavies hung around parked outside their houses?

[Melbourne Lefty]

do you think those locals want a fascist piss up in thier village, even if the only reason is because of their house prices? do you think those who complained to the council about RWB were not rather 'pissed off'/shit scared when a land rover with (suspected) BNP heavies hung around parked outside their houses?


Most of them would not have heard about the BNPs piss-up or would not have cared, it was on a farm well outside the village.

I am basing my belief that they pissed people off on reports from left wingers on the scene who were critical of the SWP/UAF actions, particularly by chanting 'fascist scum off our streets' when there were no fascists on the street and only ordinary passers by.

People are not totally rational creatures. There would no doubt be many residents who would not have cared less about a BNP Piss-up in a farm some distance away but would be seriously put out by a UAF march through their town.

Of course I am not a local so naturally everything I say here is a matter of a guess.